Comments on: Climate Criminals to the Naughty Step http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/02/climate-criminals-to-the-naughty-step.html Challenging Climate Orthodoxy Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:56:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Alex Cull http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/02/climate-criminals-to-the-naughty-step.html#comment-1120 Alex Cull Thu, 12 Feb 2009 16:38:14 +0000 http://www.climate-resistance.org/?p=286#comment-1120 Correction - I just re-read the above comment and realised I should have written "filter out the relatively sane comments", given that Prof. Lovelock's article is itself quite bonkers, LOL. Correction – I just re-read the above comment and realised I should have written “filter out the relatively sane comments”, given that Prof. Lovelock’s article is itself quite bonkers, LOL.

]]> By: Alex Cull http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/02/climate-criminals-to-the-naughty-step.html#comment-1119 Alex Cull Thu, 12 Feb 2009 12:16:34 +0000 http://www.climate-resistance.org/?p=286#comment-1119 To filthy & Geoff: Re the ST article, I tried to leave a comment in the Have Your Say box yesterday, but it isn't showing - maybe they cap the number of comments after a certain number, or after a few days have passed? Or perhaps they filter out the kookier comments - I didn't think mine was too rabid, but... :o) As an interesting contrast to the prophetic visions of Prof. Lovelock, here's the Met Office in sensible mode: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/11/climate-change-misleading-claims To filthy & Geoff: Re the ST article, I tried to leave a comment in the Have Your Say box yesterday, but it isn’t showing – maybe they cap the number of comments after a certain number, or after a few days have passed? Or perhaps they filter out the kookier comments – I didn’t think mine was too rabid, but… :o )

As an interesting contrast to the prophetic visions of Prof. Lovelock, here’s the Met Office in sensible mode:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/11/climate-change-misleading-claims

]]> By: geoff chambers http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/02/climate-criminals-to-the-naughty-step.html#comment-1118 geoff chambers Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:07:44 +0000 http://www.climate-resistance.org/?p=286#comment-1118 To filthy Thanks for drawing my attention to this load of burbling insanity. I imagine most Sunday Times readers prefer to read Jeremy Clarkson, but like to know there’s a bit of morally uplifting garbage at hand, like some sermon from a Victorian bishop. The good news is that it only provoked ten comments, whereas Monbiot’s bitchier, more activist stuff in the Guardian has produced 400+. The bad news is that our serious press is proudly publishing stuff which, if you saw it printed on a placard carried by some poor bloke with his trousers held up with string, would make you cross the road for fear of catching something. To filthy
Thanks for drawing my attention to this load of burbling insanity. I imagine most Sunday Times readers prefer to read Jeremy Clarkson, but like to know there’s a bit of morally uplifting garbage at hand, like some sermon from a Victorian bishop.
The good news is that it only provoked ten comments, whereas Monbiot’s bitchier, more activist stuff in the Guardian has produced 400+. The bad news is that our serious press is proudly publishing stuff which, if you saw it printed on a placard carried by some poor bloke with his trousers held up with string, would make you cross the road for fear of catching something.

]]> By: filthy http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/02/climate-criminals-to-the-naughty-step.html#comment-1117 filthy Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:11:36 +0000 http://www.climate-resistance.org/?p=286#comment-1117 No fisking of James Lovelock's mad article in The Sunday Times? I was really looking forward to it. No fisking of James Lovelock’s mad article in The Sunday Times? I was really looking forward to it.

]]> By: Alex Cull http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/02/climate-criminals-to-the-naughty-step.html#comment-1116 Alex Cull Fri, 06 Feb 2009 17:09:45 +0000 http://www.climate-resistance.org/?p=286#comment-1116 I've only seen the first episode of this, but it seems to be progressing much as expected. Regarding the jokeyness of the whole thing, I think it was perhaps unavoidable. There would, to my mind, have been only two other ways to go about it: 1) present these particular green measures as things that anyone could carry out or afford, which is clearly not the case, or 2) have a completely different programme instead, about green measures which people generally would be able to take (so that we can all live on our WWF-allotted one planet - or even less!), which would probably read like a depressingly long list of Don'ts. Don't fly, Don't drive, Don't eat meat, Don't consume energy, Don't go abroad on holiday, Don't switch on your lights, Don't go out in the evening, or otherwise do anything much that involves motor vehicles, food miles, fossil fuels or electricity (I may be exaggerating just a bit.) Re option 2) they'd probably do better to forget the green angle and repackage the programme as a "Survive the Credit Crunch by Making Do with Less" sort of guide, as I think people might relate to that more. (Although if these were meant to be permanent measures, the programme would basically be selling poverty, not an easy proposition: how many BBC viewers actually aspire to be poor?) Well, that's my comment for the day; I will now trudge back to my own little corner of the Hundred Acre Wood and sit there to ponder "Why?", "Wherefore?" and "Inasmuch as which?"... :o) I’ve only seen the first episode of this, but it seems to be progressing much as expected. Regarding the jokeyness of the whole thing, I think it was perhaps unavoidable. There would, to my mind, have been only two other ways to go about it: 1) present these particular green measures as things that anyone could carry out or afford, which is clearly not the case, or 2) have a completely different programme instead, about green measures which people generally would be able to take (so that we can all live on our WWF-allotted one planet – or even less!), which would probably read like a depressingly long list of Don’ts. Don’t fly, Don’t drive, Don’t eat meat, Don’t consume energy, Don’t go abroad on holiday, Don’t switch on your lights, Don’t go out in the evening, or otherwise do anything much that involves motor vehicles, food miles, fossil fuels or electricity (I may be exaggerating just a bit.) Re option 2) they’d probably do better to forget the green angle and repackage the programme as a “Survive the Credit Crunch by Making Do with Less” sort of guide, as I think people might relate to that more. (Although if these were meant to be permanent measures, the programme would basically be selling poverty, not an easy proposition: how many BBC viewers actually aspire to be poor?)

Well, that’s my comment for the day; I will now trudge back to my own little corner of the Hundred Acre Wood and sit there to ponder “Why?”, “Wherefore?” and “Inasmuch as which?”… :o )

]]> By: geoff chambers http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/02/climate-criminals-to-the-naughty-step.html#comment-1115 geoff chambers Thu, 05 Feb 2009 20:58:27 +0000 http://www.climate-resistance.org/?p=286#comment-1115 Nothing to disagree with. What’s more the article is funny, and even us Eeyores* like to chuckle now and then. But I can’t help feeling you’ve made the same wood-for-the trees-error as the environmentalists when they blather on about carbon footprints. The problem with these wankers is not that they’re stupid or hypocritical, but simply that they’re too rich for their own good. When this happened to 19th century railway magnates, they’d found a university or an art gallery or an orphanage. Their modern equivalents simply change brands. Why can’t those green hysterico-obsessives not see that their carbon footprints are directly proportional to their income? If they’re worried about their excessive contribution to global warming, no need to castrate themselves or strangle their infants; just give the stuff away (preferably to me). The greens will jump through the most convoluted pseudo-scientific hoops to justify their left / third world leanings, but never come out with the obvious solution; take the money off the filthy rich and give it to the filthy poor. Let’s go back to the golden age of egalitarianism we knew under that arch-socialist Edward Heath, when the top rate of income tax was 80%, and bankers were only a hundred times richer than the rest of us, instead of ten thousand. (*Alex Cull and I have both come out as Eeyores. I’d prefer to be known as a Cassandra, except that the warmists have monopolised that title. And then look what happened to her; she got stripped naked and raped by some Ancient Greek Tigger. I think I prefer to sulk in the corner of my field and lament my lost tail...) Nothing to disagree with. What’s more the article is funny, and even us Eeyores* like to chuckle now and then. But I can’t help feeling you’ve made the same wood-for-the trees-error as the environmentalists when they blather on about carbon footprints. The problem with these wankers is not that they’re stupid or hypocritical, but simply that they’re too rich for their own good. When this happened to 19th century railway magnates, they’d found a university or an art gallery or an orphanage. Their modern equivalents simply change brands.

Why can’t those green hysterico-obsessives not see that their carbon footprints are directly proportional to their income? If they’re worried about their excessive contribution to global warming, no need to castrate themselves or strangle their infants; just give the stuff away (preferably to me). The greens will jump through the most convoluted pseudo-scientific hoops to justify their left / third world leanings, but never come out with the obvious solution; take the money off the filthy rich and give it to the filthy poor. Let’s go back to the golden age of egalitarianism we knew under that arch-socialist Edward Heath, when the top rate of income tax was 80%, and bankers were only a hundred times richer than the rest of us, instead of ten thousand.

(*Alex Cull and I have both come out as Eeyores. I’d prefer to be known as a Cassandra, except that the warmists have monopolised that title. And then look what happened to her; she got stripped naked and raped by some Ancient Greek Tigger. I think I prefer to sulk in the corner of my field and lament my lost tail…)

]]>